M27 Replaces SAW - U.S. Marines

I just wish our military would start buying its arms from American gun companies. Keep the money and jobs here! Also, the nMe of the rifle exvapes me, but knights armament came out with an M4 style squad auto that fires from the open bolt position. It was feacherd on one of the Future weapons shows... Why would they not look at that weapon before biying oversea? I guess it just kinda ticks me off a little. Maybe its just me...

Or better yet, ise one of these... http://www.knightarmco.com/lmg.html

Im no weapons expert, or military combatant, but that lmg is belt fed, manuverable at only 10 lbs and looks to be shorter which would aid in QCB...
 
I think, personally, an RPD-like weapon in 6.5 Grendel or MPC would be better,
Click to expand...

You do know that the RPD was replaced by the PK/RPK combo because of reliability issues right? Besides, the M249 is very similar to the Soviet PK(M) in operation.

Every squad is still going to get a M249 machine gun TEAM.
Click to expand...

Yes, but isn't that where the M240's were for? A GPMG for support and LMG's to give fire-teams suppressive capabilities?
 
Yes, but isn't that where the M240's were for? A GPMG for support and LMG's to give fire-teams suppressive capabilities?
Click to expand...

From what I understand, currently there are two GPMG's for every four squads. Up to four rifle squads is what you have in a typical platoon.

The new system, may have 6 machine guns total, 2 M240 and 4 M249.

That's one M249 for each squad and one M240 for every two squads.

The M240 exists so that the two squads it's assigned to, may maneuver around that fire. It usually creates a cross fire with the other M240 team to deny the enemy ground to move.

The M249 in the new layout will do the same thing by allowing fast moving fireteams to maneuver around the M249 suppressive fire, all at the squad level.

All this is really designed so that there's enough firepower alocated elsewhere so that the rifle squads can move swiftly with impunity during an assault.
 
I think what is being missed here is a potential shift in Marine corp thinking in regards to the current weapon and doctrine shift of the rifleman concept (M16A2 more or less though it seems other models are creeping in).

This looks like an effort to replace the M16A2. HK looked to have a really good reception of their 416, and the Mk27 uses all the same stuff but beefed up for the full auto mode.

Theoretically the Marines are limited to the 3 shot burst in the M16A2 (though again full auto seems to be getting into the field as well). While DI is not an issue in semi auto, full auto it does have issues, and its magnified in the hot, nasty sandy, dirty conditions of Iraq and Afghanistan (fighting in Europe would probably not be an issue).

With the Mk27 you now have half the current fire team with a full auto weapon. It would not take much to replace all of them once that's done.

You loose some of the range from the 20 inch M16, you gain reliable full auto fire power as its full auto capable (half or full fire team). You back it up with M249 and the M240s. Still retain the semi auto feature you wold use most of the time.

Looking at the weight its the same as the current M16. Gained reliable fire power and not increased weight

So maybe a rethink of the more pure rifleman concept (or a change) and a move to more capability of a lot of automatic fire as needed.

With the volunteer Corp (though all volunteer) and the professionalism and experience retained, less of a problme in individuals using full auto all the time wasting ammunition, and shifting to it when appropriate and needed.
 
Kind of surprised by the news.
I can't see the M-27 fulfilling the same role as the M-249. I would have expected a similar weapon to or an improved version of the M-249.
 
@Brian923 that KinghtArm gun like the SAW Para is nice. 10lbs isnt that bad. They should issue something like that I was going to say SAW Para's. I fired a SAW in Las Vegas and found it to be really accurate and awesome.
 
I can't imagine why they have chosen the IAR. A replacement was needed, but to go with a weapon that does not have a quick change barrel, and uses 30 round mags to replace a dedicated machine gun is, well, short sighted. There are times when you NEED sustained full auto fire. This won't give them that.
 
A replacement was needed, but to go with a weapon that does not have a quick change barrel, and uses 30 round mags to replace a dedicated machine gun is, well, short sighted. There are times when you NEED sustained full auto fire. This won't give them that
Click to expand...

M249's are used as an automatic rifle. They don't carry around a spare barrel or preform massive 20rd bursts, tearing through belt after belt, or any other silly crap. He is a automatic rifleman, not a machine gunner. The M27 IAR is going to give them what was needed from the start, an automatic rifle like the BAR.

Incase some didn't read, here you go again....

Every squad is still going to get a M249 machine gun TEAM.

But at the fireteam level, the M27 IAR will take over.

The M249 is not disappearing for good. It will be used as a true 2-man light machine gun attached to each squad, and the M27 IAR will take over for the Automatic Rifleman role.

I don't know where people are getting this idea that the M249 is being taken away completely. It's not true.
Click to expand...
 
I 5.56x45 mag fed weapon is not a BAR unless they make it 7.62 and auto. Or maybe outfit it with 100rd drums. I doubt it is replacing the SAW that would be just stupid. All the Marines could have this weapon its called putting a full auto option on their M4's.
 
I think this goes past the BAR concept.

If they wanted full auto, then all they had to do was make the M16A2 full auto.

At least doctrinally someone felt they needed more close in accurate selective fire rifle power at the "fire team level" and they could do with less full auto machine gun fire support.

Obviously with weapons development mired in "the M16/M4" mindset that it can't be improved, they brought this one in much like the Navy did with the F18E/F (all new bird that looked like the old one)

How well it works or does not then depends on who you are fighting, the terrain and environment. Marines had a disadvantage in Iraq with 20 inch M16, when the M4 was better for "most" of the fighting that was going on because it was close range.

However, with the longer distances and less built up areas of Afghanistan, most of the time the M16A2 with its 20 inch barrel gives you better long reach and not a hindrance (after all, we fought WWII with the Garand, though reports are that many companies supplemented it to about half of them with sub machine guns)

So, long term does it work and do they introduce it to the full fire team a bit at a time. Stay tuned.

Brits tired something similar with their bullpup. A bit different as their had a barrel length of 24 inches (they could do it and because of the short length of the action). Didn't prove out, though it then turned into a useful long range precision weapon rather than the BAR role they thought it would.

When you don't have anything better you use what you got, someone is trying to come up with something better.

The best solution is some variation of the changeable barrel rifles out not (XCR etc) that you can tune to your needs. Lots of close quarter stuff, mostly carry 14 inch short barrels with some longer ones for sniper long range engagement uses.

In the mountains and plains, 16-18-20 inch barrel.

It would also help to get to a folding stock so the length in vehicles was not an issue (which is why the M4 is so short).

Getting away from the DI is a major change for the Mk27/HK, so its a way to change a weapon and not get into another boondoggle run by the Army that has produced nothing, let alone improved significantly in 30 years (Picitinay railsls are the only new thing since Name, and that works with any rifle)
 
The M27 is not going to be an effective base of fire weapon for suppression and manuever. Eventually a bunch of Marines are going to have a TIC when they're running light, get overrun and killed because they can't effectively suppress. When the rubber meets the road, I don't think the current USMC's fetishism for the BAR (which didn't work nearly as well as they seem to think) is going to be a winner, and like all bad decisions made at a high level, the guys at the sharp end will be the ones paying the bill for some snug and safe general's pet theory going pear shaped.
 
I've always thought that the assault rifle and SAW should both be replaced with a rifle that adheres to a mass fire doctrine with an increase ammo loadout from the current 210rds, to a minimum of 350-400rds with 50-80rd quad stack mags or drums. The idea is that the firepower would be spread out and all feeding devices would be interchangable. Also, no one soldier would have an abnormal loadout weight like the M249 and its 600rds. And each squad would still retain a belt fed crew served MG.

Of course, this would increase every riflemans loadout weight and prohibit them from carrying an underbarrel grenande launcher. So you'd have a dedicated grenadier instead.

problem soved?:D
 
I think that the Squad designated marksman (accuracy) is the better direction to move in than a new weapon for increasing the rate of fire.
 
The SAW could have been improved upon -- and various of the weapons considered in the USMC IAR program would have been improvements.

Just not the M27.

I may be wrong, and the idea may work out, but that's not the way I'd put my money . . .
 
Ate dinner tonight with friends, including their son just back from the 'stan. This was his second tour with the Second Marines.
I asked him about this subject, and he laughed. According to him, the old M249s were so worn out, that they were not at all reliable, malfunctioned constantly, and were mostly left behind.
He has used the H&K 416, and likes it.
 
THe H&K 416 ar ethe best M4 type rifles out there. Just we need a weapon that is going to lay down serious lead when needed.
 
Back to, its not a BAR, its an M16 replacement with better full auto capability.

And I do think the BAR was very effective, but that was a different era of combat.

Always interesting when a new weapon is introduced and what it was intended for and what it became (WWII the Army issued Sub Machine guns to tank crews, who traded them to the infantry who really needed them.)

All tank crews really needed was a pistol (you didn't want your tank running around without infantry support anyway, tank crews were hard to replace, you didn't want them engaged in small arms combat)

And so it goes and we will see, but wipe off its an M249 replacement. Supplement maybe.

And a worn out M249 needs to be replaced with a good M249, not a different gun, ergo its a leadership failure. Hmm, car ran out of gas, get a new car, right.
 
And a worn out M249 needs to be replaced with a good M249, not a different gun, ergo its a leadership failure
Click to expand...

+1

Well I guess we all know what gun will be Call of Duty-ed soon. :rolleyes:

BTW, the figures quoted in the article for "40 rounds per minute" should give someone a good idea of the lack of suppressive ability of the M27 (only 28 if its over 100 deg). That's pathetic. Oh and have fun walking around with 600 rounds spread out in 30-round mags. Or is that "too much ammo" for an automatic rifleman now?

And the argument that its not a replacement but a supplement doesn't hold water either. I'm pretty sure an M4A1 with full-auto is just as capable as this M27. Supplement a team of M16A4s with a M4A1? Right.

This is just a little ridiculous and I hope its just a provocative story by a dreamy journalist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top